analyze_uwb

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool is composite and describes modes, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens when parameters are used in conflicting modes, whether the tool is destructive, rate limits, or output format. For a mutation-capable tool (attack mode), this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, with a clear structure introducing the tool and listing modes. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes explicitly), but overall it is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations exist. The description does not explain return values, error states, prerequisites, or confirm whether the tool modifies state. For a composite tool with multiple modes, this incompleteness leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the enum values by providing brief context: 'assess UWB security for a use case', 'attack techniques including Ghost Peak', 'secure ranging best practices'. It also clarifies that use_case is for assess mode, which the schema does not explicitly enforce.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a composite tool for UWB security analysis with specific modes (assess, attack, defense). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other wireless technologies like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'UWB' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the three modes and briefly explains each, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied for UWB analysis, there is no mention of when not to use it or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.